Symthic Forum was shut down on January 11th, 2019. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2019-01-08 at 22:31. Thank you all for your support! Please get in touch via the Curse help desk if you need any support using this archive.

That's interesting considering the interaction between the BF3 Stinger and air vehicles.

@Labby

had a detailed explanation for this a while back.

Stingers/AA missiles and little bird interactions are one thing, but for pretty much the rest of BF3/BF4 has pretty lame-lock on meta. I'm mostly talking from the tank perspective where the javelin is either garbage or a hilarious unstoppable spam weapon if you have a hard target like a tank designating for you.

Who thought it was a good idea to implement laser guided weapons vs aircraft but not give them any meaningful method of breaking lock?

I certainly don't remember the stinger having a meaningful impact on rocket-strafing jets either.

The lock-ons are a necessity in BF3 and 4 because it is authentic and are also born from game mechanics. When something rushes past with 300 miles per hour and also has the ability maneuever in a three-dimensional space it is very hard to land an accurate shot with anything. Of course it is satisfying that you can kill planes with every weapon in BF1, but that is simply because it is authentic. It would likely work in a WW II setting as well, as long as planes do not increase in speed.
Lock-ons are only partly useful anyway, because they were never intended as a hard counter, but more a deterrent or distraction. Something to pull out countermeasures. At least against aircraft. Yep, the game design allowed it to become abusable, but in the current state of BF4 you would need quite a bit of team synergy to make it viable. It was a bit different in BF3 though. But considering the game had a far more pressing unfixed issue with their airgame I would say this problem is secondary.

And for aim assist in general on PC, I really do not think this is needed. BF1 with it's dark environments, dark soldiers and weapons obstructing the ADS makes it indeed way harder to see and kill people but that applies to everyone in the same way. Even as an average player you can usually work much more precise with the mouse than you might think so snapping or magnetic bullets are way less effective than with a controller. Generally the feedback in gunplay in BF1 is not on point though. For me it is important that gun mechanics work well with aiming, and that is just not the case in BF1. Staying on target is vastly easier in BF1 due to generally less recoil and a lower ROF. The problem comes into play when you add the low visibility of targets and the overemphasis on spread mechanics. That is why I, and many others, experience inconsistent gunplay. I think I am on point and will not hit, because of spread or the target being grey, in a grey environment, behind grey ironsights blocking half the view.

I do not think aim assist or magnetic bullets would do anything to increase your gaming experience other than by hitting more for no apparent reason. And of course with a tool as precise as a mouse, with it snapping to the target ever so slightly would probably throw people off. I mean if you turn very slow with a controller and then the aim snaps to target fast it is somewhat clear what happened. But if you move your mouse very fast, as you do, and then the crosshair just jitters to target, I would not be able to tell if it was me fucking up or the aim assist.
Positioning should indeed be rewarded more, but that is more a map design issue than anything else. When most maps are mostly open fields, extreme close environments, or trenches with narrow railways sightlines positioning is taking a step back. Spotting and being spotted as well as 64 playercounts, vaulting and therefore no real lanes to block of play into that as well.

And for aim assist in general on PC, I really do not think this is needed. BF1 with it's dark environments, dark soldiers and weapons obstructing the ADS makes it indeed way harder to see and kill people but that applies to everyone in the same way. Even as an average player you can usually work much more precise with the mouse than you might think so snapping or magnetic bullets are way less effective than with a controller. Generally the feedback in gunplay in BF1 is not on point though. For me it is important that gun mechanics work well with aiming, and that is just not the case in BF1. Staying on target is vastly easier in BF1 due to generally less recoil and a lower ROF. The problem comes into play when you add the low visibility of targets and the overemphasis on spread mechanics. That is why I, and many others, experience inconsistent gunplay. I think I am on point and will not hit, because of spread or the target being grey, in a grey environment, behind grey ironsights blocking half the view.

I do not think aim assist or magnetic bullets would do anything to increase your gaming experience other than by hitting more for no apparent reason. And of course with a tool as precise as a mouse, with it snapping to the target ever so slightly would probably throw people off. I mean if you turn very slow with a controller and then the aim snaps to target fast it is somewhat clear what happened. But if you move your mouse very fast, as you do, and then the crosshair just jitters to target, I would not be able to tell if it was me fucking up or the aim assist.
Positioning should indeed be rewarded more, but that is more a map design issue than anything else. When most maps are mostly open fields, extreme close environments, or trenches with narrow railways sightlines positioning is taking a step back. Spotting and being spotted as well as 64 playercounts, vaulting and therefore no real lanes to block of play into that as well.

Aiming assistance would probably be very intrusive on a mouse. Pretty sure bullet magnetism would feel good though, if tuned well. Cant say I've noticed it at all when playing Halo, but might be different on pc.

Magnetism could increase average range of engagement by making long range automatics more relevant. Ease of use is probably a contributing factor to battlefield's CQB meta. It could be used as a balance factor too, and for differentiating weapons. Bullet magnetism could scale/kick in with distance to your target, like it is done in halo. Ranged weapons are not only better at range, but also helped more, which makes the intended usage more pleasant and effective.

Wanna help your team by sneaking through enemy territory to provide spawns? THIS IS NOT TEAMWORK FGT I HOPE YOU RUN OUT OF MOTION BALLS TOO EARLY TO BE SUCCESSFUL
Wanna be Javelin squad but only have two guys? BETTER NOT GET YOUR SOFLAM KILLED FGT THIS IS NOT TEAMWORK WITHOUT A SUPPORT DUDE DROPPING AMMO ON YOU EVERY 2 MINUTES

The only way you could possibly make some sort of aim assist workable in a competitive game is by making it have some sort of horrid drawback such that as players grew in skill they would naturally graviate to turning it off so that they stopped sucking.

The point of a crutch is to keep people walking until they get well enough to walk independently. They aren't meant as a superior form of walking.

While I don't think it's appropriate for a first-person shooter, I've been playing a third-person shooter / JRPG that features a lock-on type assist (point of aim tracks enemy and moves around the screen), and it's a fantastic way to allow for real fluid, movement-heavy combat, as opposed to being a cover-shooter like many third-person shooters tend to be. The assist has the major drawback of drastically worse spread (base, moving, SIPS), and as such can be toggled on and off on the fly. It's not really an assist so much as a situation-specific "gadget".

Not really applicable to Battlefield, but it's an interesting design that I haven't really seen before.

While I don't think it's appropriate for a first-person shooter, I've been playing a third-person shooter / JRPG that features a lock-on type assist (point of aim tracks enemy and moves around the screen), and it's a fantastic way to allow for real fluid, movement-heavy combat, as opposed to being a cover-shooter like many third-person shooters tend to be. The assist has the major drawback of drastically worse spread (base, moving, SIPS), and as such can be toggled on and off on the fly. It's not really an assist so much as a situation-specific "gadget".

Not really applicable to Battlefield, but it's an interesting design that I haven't really seen before.

While I don't think it's appropriate for a first-person shooter, I've been playing a third-person shooter / JRPG that features a lock-on type assist (point of aim tracks enemy and moves around the screen), and it's a fantastic way to allow for real fluid, movement-heavy combat, as opposed to being a cover-shooter like many third-person shooters tend to be. The assist has the major drawback of drastically worse spread (base, moving, SIPS), and as such can be toggled on and off on the fly. It's not really an assist so much as a situation-specific "gadget".

Not really applicable to Battlefield, but it's an interesting design that I haven't really seen before.

That's tab-targeting.

Hmm, interesting, I looked that term up but it's not quite it. It plays like this. When enabled, it soft-tracks targets in hipfire, though ADS removes the tracking effect (but ADS still has the spread penalty over having it disabled).